Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] arm64: ptrace: allow tracer to skip a system call

Will Deacon
2014-08-26T17:51:42Z

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
> > <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> index 8876049..c54dbcc 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> @@ -1121,9 +1121,29 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
> >>
> >> asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> + unsigned int saved_syscallno = regs->syscallno;
> >> +
> >> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
> >> tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
> >>
> >> + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno)) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value of user
> >> + * issued syscall(-1) here. In order to ease this flavor,
> >> + * we need to treat whatever value in x0 as a return value,
> >> + * but this might result in a bogus value being returned.
> >> + */
> >> + /*
> >> + * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal is
> >> + * detected in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since
> >> + * a value set to x0 here is not used in this case, we may
> >> + * neglect the case.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE) ||
> >> + (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(saved_syscallno)))
> >> + regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > I don't have a runtime environment yet for arm64, so I can't test this
> > directly myself, so I'm just trying to eyeball this. :)
> >
> > Once the seccomp logic is added here, I don't think using -2 as a
> > special value will work. Doesn't this mean the Oops is possible by the
> > user issuing a "-2" syscall? As in, if TIF_SYSCALL_WORK is set, and
> > the user passed -2 as the syscall, audit will be called only on entry,
> > and then skipped on exit?
>
> Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case.
> syscall_trace_enter() should not return a syscallno directly, but always
> return -1 if syscallno < 0. (except when secure_computing() returns with -1)
> This also implies that tracehook_report_syscall() should also have a return value.
>
> Will, is this fine with you?

Well, the first thing that jumps out at me is why this is being done
completely differently for arm64 and arm. I thought adding the new ptrace
requests would reconcile the differences?

Will